/lit/ - Literature

>>16531901
both r tru n its paradoxcal.
egg brthng chkn brthng egg.
~

>>16531901
I tend towards the latter too. It seems to me that, especially in Timaeus, Plato is willing to concede that the Demiurge is good not because of its essence, but out of mere logical necessity: namely, because the only paradigm that is available to him is good, so he is good by proxy.

That said, neoplatonists might disagree insofar as they would deny that the Demiurge is the highest God. Plotinus for example, by following Book 6 of Republic (where the Good is defined as being beyond essence), claimed that what modern people would define as God is to be found in the One, which can also be called the Good (it is important not to imply any multiplicity here: the Good and the One are two words meant to denote the same thing in the same way).

>>16531901
How are the implications of either case different?

>>16531967
It is about wether something is good because of its essence, or if it is good only because of an accident. If the Good is good only because it pleases fhe God, then the Good is good only by accident, since if you take the Gods out of the picture, the Good stops being good.
Conversely, if the gods are good because they adhere to the Good, then they are not essentially good, since if you take the Good out of the picture they will stop being Good.
The same problem can be translated into secular terms too, by using the dichotomy moral law/normativity instead.

>>16531901
What if I don't believe in the existence of any deity or spiritual being?

>>16531901
>Simplistic binary morality
>Antiquated superstitious beings control the world
Into the trash it goes

>>16531901
Good is getting closer to God since he is the Good.

>>16531986
Terrible interpretation.
The words used are love and piety, very different from anything related to an accident. And this cannot be applied to the secular because the laws of material do not function in the same way.

>>16531901
It should be latter except an amendment in that it's good because it comes from God. Pleasing doesn't particularly matter because God is prior to that but operating in a good, truthful manner, is necessarily going towards a stronger relationship with God, and thus the world, and would be pleasing in that manner.

>>16532010
Then you can't be good.

>>16532051
>The words used are love and piety, very different from anything related to an accident.
The mezning remains the same: Gods are not pious in themselves if they're good only because of the Good.
>And this cannot be applied to the secular because the laws of material do not function in the same way.
Secularism does not entail mere materialism. The same problem could be reformulated in Kantian terms.

>>16532124
>The same problem could be reformulated in Kantian terms.
lol

>>16531901
It is good because it pleases the gods. The gods are good and you partake in that goodness by pleasing the gods through piety(piety being that which pleases the gods).

>>16532131
Yawn

>>16531901
Tomato, tomato. It's both because the priest said so.

God is the Good. And the Good loves itself.

>>16532408
Kys butterfly, at least assert that you are a solipsist.

>>16532408
Brainlet take.
>Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
How does that make him malevolent? Without evil there can be no good, so by creating evil he creates good as well. Evil is a way to test humanity and turn them good.

>>16532413
Why test us if he's omniscient? It's fundamentally contradictory.
>>16532411
Not even pretending to be her

>>16532423
>Not even pretending to be her
Same point remains.

Not the other guy but it's not a test, it's (((being))). Do you want human freedom or not?

>>16532408
you dont believe in the Good but you appeal to evil ?

>>16532441
I enjoy my limited free will, and I don't need any sky daddy fantasies to cope with existence.
Solipsism's just as irrational.

>>16532423
>Why test us if he's omniscient?
God knows everything, but we don't, that's why. Testing us with evil is a way to turn us good.

>>16532463
>sky daddy
go back.

>>16532467
The the second question is why not just make us good to begin with? He is omnipotent, isn't he?
"he works in mysterious ways" is among the least incoherent cope, I'll give you that.

>>16532475
Keep seethin, baby

>>16532478
Like I said, there can't be good without evil. Try to refute that before you say "why doesn't he just make everything good?"

>>16532463
"Skydaddie" is a logical conclusion. You think within limited logical confinements you know not because of your reductive mindedness.

>>16532475
i agree with you but
>posting basedjak
>telling anyone to go back

>>16532559
go back.

>>16532501
>there can't be good without evil
Why not? Much of our actions seem neither good nor evil. Is reading fiction evil? Is exercise? Is gardening?
>>16532510
Your (Christianity's) conclusion, not mine. I think agnostics might be the only ones not assuming things.

>>16532622
i don't think i will, newfag

>>16532628
There is no pure good or evil, but everything has elements of good and evil, but good needs evil to exist and vice versa, else everything would be completely neutral.
In case you believe that everything is neither good or evil, then your quote isn't a refutation of god, because there is no need for god to defeat evil since it doesn't exist.

>>16532706
What makes good and evil exist? That you say just because something exists its opposite should would imply only twins at birth in addition to everything else

>>16532806
>What makes good and evil exist?
God

>That you say just because something exists its opposite should would imply only twins at birth in addition to everything else
correct

The Good inheres in God, they're the same thing

>>16532478
We are good to begin with. Its people of little faith who choose their own sovereignty over the Divine Will (or fate or the play of the Logos or the will of the Gods- just the Transcendent power that makes everything) that create "evil" by their own terrible, selfish choices.
Yes omniscience is true because the highest God (the good) manifests all possibilities. The Self (God) moves through them all, omniscience and omnipotence are co-mingled, it is only the forgetting and breakdown of Unity that allows the false conception of evil to arise and obscure the undefiled harmony of the All.
>>16533894
Sounds right imo.
>>16531901
God is The Good, The Good is God. God is an doesthat which is good and what is good is what is Godly.
Wasn't they guy Socrates was arguing with in that discussion basically presenting a sophist opinion? As I recall it was less of an argument against divinity than it was an argument against manipulating people using ones notions of divinity.

>>16531901

Both are rather disgraceful for God and Good alike. The Monad refracting a Dyad is terminal. Rather, the relation between God and Good is that of THE Monad reflecting A Monad.

>>16535959
take your meds

>>16531967
Theologically, in the former case, what pleases the gods is arbitrary, so looking to the gods for how to act in life gives you no stable or consistent standard. In the latter case, you can bypass the gods for the form itself to model action by.